I got tired of responding to Muehlenkamp's comments because as I said elsewhere on this board, he can battle with Mattogno over math equations, and wood requirements all he wants. He can battle all he wants about what was possible.

Read: Drew J has realized that he has no arguments against my shredding of Mattogno's pathetic attempts to make believe that what becomes apparent from the documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence to mass murder at Belzec was physically/technically or logistically impossible, and thus decided that it is safer for him to play the infantile "show me just one this and that" – game taught to him by his mentor "Pepper" a.k.a. Greg Gerdes.

Drew J

The point is, can he prove it.

Definitely so. What becomes apparent from all known evidence without any evidence pointing to an alternative scenario is proven by such evidence to have happened, except insofar as it was physically, technically or logistically impossible. Mattogno has gone out of his way to demonstrate such physical, technical or logistical impossibility. And he has failed disastrously.

Drew J

Can he furnish photo, video or lab evidence of there being what Kola claims there was in his core samples? NO!

No, I have no access to "photo, video or lab" evidence supporting Prof. Kola's drawings and descriptions of what he found in the soil at Belzec. But that doesn’t mean such "photo, video or lab" evidence does not exist, only that it hasn’t been made accessible to the public. In fact, Prof. Kola tells his readers on pages 10/11 of his Belzec book where the kind of evidence mentioned by Drew J is probably kept (emphases mine):

Directed by that need The Council of Protection of Memory of Combat and Martyrdom turned in 1997 to the Archaeological and Ethnological Institute of Nicholas Copernicus University in Toruń with a request of conducting probing archaeological works at the territory of the camp in Bełżec. The excavation started in autumn 1997 and was carried on in spring and autumn 1998 and in autumn 1999. The result of the excavation works was a detailed archaeological documentation together with the basic report delivered to The Council of Protection of Memory of Struggle and Martyrdom as to the principal, together with the preliminary reports. The other, non archaeological documentation collected simultaneously were chemical analysis and microscope studies of samples taken during the probing works. They were made to verify the conclusions emerging from archaeological analysis.

So if Drew J is interested (which I doubt) in seeing "photo, video or lab" evidence showing the accuracy of Prof. Kola’s drawings and descriptions of his core drill finds at Belzec, he should direct himself to the Archives of the Council of Protection of Memory of Combat and Martyrdom (Rada Ochrony Pamięci Walk i Męczeństwa - ROPWiM) in Warsaw, Poland.

Now, why on earth should I have to prove to anyone the accuracy of what a renowned professional archaeologist like Prof. Kola wrote in his report about Belzec, moreover as Prof. Kola's finds are matched by all documentary and eyewitness evidence to what happened at that place, and also by earlier investigations of the physical evidence? The contents of Prof. Kola’s reports are at least prima facie evidence that Prof. Kola found what he described, and it is for howlers like Drew J to provide evidence pointing to some sort of manipulation in Prof. Kola’s reports if they want to reverse the burden of proof. So far they haven't provided such evidence. The absence of core sample photos in Prof. Kola report is no evidence to any manipulation. It's not even an indication in that direction.

Drew J

So in other words, Muehlenkamp might as well spend the rest of his time arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

What cowardly bigmouths like Drew J do not understand (unlike their more intelligent gurus like Mattogno) is that the ball is in their court. It is up to them to discredit the evidence exclusively pointing to mass murder by demonstrating that mass murder and body disposal as becomes apparent from the evidence was physically, technically or logistically impossible. Mattogno has tried and failed. Drew J is too cowardly and incompetent to even try.

Drew J

He also says he has no way to respond to me since he can't post at codoh. Funny he how claims he can't respond to me, yet he just admitted that he responded to my codoh belzec stuff over at rodoh and he has now devoted two blog entries to me in the past week.I guess his actions betray his words. I guess he can't keep his thoughts straight.

Poor Drew J, who does he think he's impressing by playing dumb? (Well, there are enough cretins on CODOH to be impressed.) Of course I can comment his CODOH tirades somewhere else, like on this blog spot or on RODOH. But that's not the same as having a direct discussion on the same forum, which was what I clearly referred to when I wrote the following:

One wonders why this fellow insists in spouting nonsense about me and my arguments on a forum to which (as he knows or should have realized by now) I have no access, instead of confronting me on the RODOH forum or another forum where I can respond to him directly.

Drew J

I don't see why I should waste time with him on vnn or rodoh.

Well, one good reason is the cowardly behavior you have shown so far by mouthing off about me to readers unlikely to see what I have to say about your mouthing, my friend. And you can be sure that it won't be a waste of time for any of us or for our audience, for I'll be exposing the imbecility of your "Revisionist" arguments (if such they can be called), and you will be efficiently contributing to that worthy undertaking.

So how about it, Drew J? Will you grow some balls or not?

Drew J

Especially the latter which was just exposed as engaging in covert censorship by spiriting away key posts such as Shyster's post on the Bischoff letter that I have quoted out of the view of the general, non rodoh registered public.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but if whatever you mean by "covert censorship" disturbs you, how come you keep posting on a forum like that of CODOH, where censorship is not "covert" but flagrant?

Ah, and I didn’t say it must be RODOH. What I said was this:

Drew J should stop being a yelping coward and engage me one a forum to which I have access and where we can discuss directly, without the intervention of partisan moderators for one or the other side. There are several such places on the web, including but not limited to RODOH, the Usenet and – believe it or not – the discussion forum of the "Vanguard News Network", where I debated Greg Gerdes and other "White" specimens over 105 pages on the thread Archeological Investigations of Treblinka.

Drew J

Why? So he can act like a fundamentalist Christian who demands an atheist who wrote a good article say exposing the kalam cosmological argument over to his board just so he can insult him and continue to waste time dodging Treblinka questions?

No, you yelping coward. So I can show you acting like a fundamentalist Christian demanding proof of the non-existence of God from an atheist who points to the fact of there being no evidence to God’s existence and all known evidence pointing in the opposite direction. And so I can answer all your "Treblinka questions" like I answered the same questions asked by your mentor Greg Gerdes a.k.a. "Pepper" before, and then ask you some Treblinka questions of my own which unlike yours will be pertinent questions, and which you will run away from just like chicken-shit Gerdes ran away from well over 200 questions I asked his "tfsfcsupporter" sockpuppet in our RODOH discussions, not to mention the many questions he left unanswered before on Topix and the VNN thread Archeological Investigations of Treblinka. That will be the show, my friend. After what I've seen from you so far, I'm not surprised that you're afraid of it.

Drew J

So he can get angry that like others, I, won't accept low burdens of proof such as that Polish grave robbing article which I rightly called into question at the bottom of page four of this current codoh topic you the reader are in the middle of now?

Now this gets us to a few interesting questions, namely the following:

2. What "low" standards of proof do you think this article would meet, and who applies such standards?

3. What are your "high" standards of proof, and who (other than "Revisionists" when it comes to anything that goes against their articles of faith) apply such "high" standards of proof? Are you talking about the standards of proof applied at a criminal trial under a constitutional state's defendant-friendly procedural rules, which are the highest standards known to me? If not, please explain in detail what would be sufficient to meet your "high" standards, and what (other than your desire to protect your articles of faith against inconvenient evidence) those standards are based on.

Drew J

I don't think so. If he can prove his case, he'll do it on his blog entry instead of bitching about how he has to reply on his blog entry to guys like me. If he doesn't like responding to people by way of his blog, then why does he even have a blog?

That’s just the kind of piss-poor excuse I would have expected from a yelping coward like you, Drew J.

First of all, "my" case is that of established historiography, and that case had been proven by the reasonable standards of both historiography and criminal justice long before I even started looking into these issues.

Second, the blog (which, incidentally, is not mine – I’m just one of several contributors) is for writing articles about pathetic "Revisionist" objections to the evidence that has satisfied historians, criminal investigators and judges throughout the world over the decades, in order to show to whoever might be interested how pathetic these objections are, and with a focus on book-writing gurus like Mattogno & Graf rather than on little internet howlers like Drew J. Though it allows for comments, the blog is not meant to be or replace a discussion forum. For that there are places like RODOH.

Drew J

Like I predicted, you would simply repeat yourself if I registered on VNN and complain about how others won't accept your low standards of proof, ala, the polish grave robbing article which basically went like this back in the forties. "Hey we have some guys who dug up Jewish remains. Their teeth and their gold." "Why that's great work partner. Let's photograph this evidence like a normal person trying to document evidence of any crime would so we can prove to the world what happened at Treblinka." "No, I have a better idea, let's skip photographing the actual evidence and just photograph the perps." Makes little sense right.

What actually makes little sense is the infantile nonsense written by Drew J. The Polish article contains or mentions rather interesting evidence (including but not limited to photographs) to the fact that the site of the former Treblinka extermination camp was the subject of intensive robbery-digging after the war, which it wouldn't have been but for the mass murder that had occurred there and that a wealth of documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence points to, with not a shred of evidence pointing in another direction. It thus adds a few more exhibits to the evidence proving that hundreds of thousands of people were murdered at Treblinka.

Drew J

But as I said at the bottom of page four, it makes no sense to not document something you would want to or should if you have the opportunity to do so. Unless there is of course nothing to photograph.

Or unless written documentation was considered sufficient and nobody saw a point in photographing the objects found with the grave diggers along with the grave diggers themselves. And that's assuming that no such photographs were actually taken, which is not exactly a logical conclusion to be drawn from the fact that only one photograph of the police action in question survived to this day. But then, who would expect "Revisionist" knuckleheads to apply anything resembling logic?

Drew J

AOh yeah they have written testimonies about all the alleged stuff dug up by graverobbers at Treblinka, but that's not good enough.

Because Drew J says so, or for some reason worth considering?

Drew J

The holocaust industry has been filled with proven liars from day one.

Actually that’s true of "Revisionism", whereas I doubt that the howler can even demonstrate the existence of the kind of monolithic "holocaust industry" he fantasizes about.

Drew J

One case out of many was the fact that after no one believed the kabbalistic six million figure in world war one, Ilya Ehrenburg a Soviet propagandist promoted the six million figure after the second world war. This was the same man who admitted to atheist Jew Joseph Burg in the forties that he saw no evidence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. Yet, Ehrenburg didn't know at the time, that years later Joseph Burg would support the revisionist cause and testify under oath in a Canadian court in the Zundel 1985 trial that Ehrenburg privately confessed to him that he saw no evidence of gas chambers. Now we can understand why Burg, who apparently betrayed his own Jewish people was denied burial in a Jewish cemetary.

Drew J must have been eagerly swallowing some mendacious and particularly insane "Revisionist" rubbish. Maybe someone should tell the poor soul that

a) There was no "kabbalistic six million figure in world war". In the 31 October 1919 issue of The American Hebrew there appeared an article headed The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!, written by Martin H. Glynn, former Governor of the State of New York. The author was lamenting the poor conditions under which European Jews were living after World War I. Glynn referred to these conditions as a potential "holocaust" and asserted that "six million Jewish men and women are starving across the seas". "Revisionists" have given further proof of their imbecility by using this somewhat over-dramatizing call for helping impoverished European Jewry ("We may not be their keepers but we ought to be their helpers.") to claim that the "six million figure" of Jews murdered by the Nazis was brought up after World War II bearing in mind Glynn’s 1919 article, or something like that.

c) Joseph Burg was a raving "Revisionist" lunatic and liar, thus a miserable source to rely on about whatever Ehrenburg is supposed to have told him.

d) Based on documentary and eyewitness evidence, West German criminal justice authorities have conducted a total of 912 trials involving 1,875 defendants between 1945 and 1997, regarding crimes committed at a huge number of camps and other crime locations. Some of these trials involved the interrogation of dozens or even hundreds of eyewitnesses, and the testimonies of these eyewitnesses were subject to careful scrutiny by prosecutors, by defense attorneys and by judges with a marked tendency to apply the in dubio pro reo principle (see my articles Jürgen Graf on Criminal Justice and Nazi Crimes, More Fun With Ugly Voice Productions (Part 1) and Meet Karl Frenzel). Many of these testimonies were found to be essentially reliable following such scrutiny, many were not. I submit that "Revisionists" haven’t proven even a small fraction of these witnesses to have been liars (and not just mistaken about one or the other detail), if they have proven any eyewitness to have lied at all.

After displaying his own cowardice with his piss-poor excuses for not meeting me on a debating forum, Drew J turns to defending his mentor Gerdes, from whom he received an e-mail unsurprisingly full of the kind of repetitive self-projecting obnoxious hollering that anyone who has met the chimp is abundantly familiar with. Let’s look at Gerdes’ crap, then.

Gerdes

Ok, I looked over that thread agian, and you do have some things mixed up. (Though if you've been debating roberta, I can understand.) So let's get started:

Muehlenkamp: "...Chelmno, at Belzec (both of which camps, incidentally, have disappeared from the NAFCASH challenge – Gerdes must have got cold feet)"

So I looked and I don't see those camps as part of the monetary reward just Treblinka.

OK, Drew, one more thing. If you're not already aware of the fact, everything that comes out of roberta's mouth, if not a bald faced lie, is at least some sort of sophistic, meallymouthed half truth at best. This is why these kinds of questions take so much time and effort, because usually there is some thruth to what he's said, but it has to be broken down to see the bits of truth from the lies and deceptions.

The chimp is obviously looking in the mirror (well, except for the "bits of truth").

Gerdes

So let me tell you what is included in The Final Solution Forensic challenge. It is Sobibor and Treblinka only.

We know that, chimp. You should have read my blog before hacking away.

Gerdes

One hundred grand for locating / proving the existence of just one grave that contains just one tenth of one percent of the alleged mass murder. Pretty simple huh?

If Gerdes were reasonable enough and not too cowardly to accept as evidence what a US court of justice would accept as evidence that there is at least one mass grave containing at least "one tenth of one percent" of the "alleged" mass murder at Sobibor and Treblinka, it would be easy indeed. If, on the other hand, Gerdes accepts as evidence nothing short of a certain amount of bone fragments or teeth being unloaded at his doorstep together with a certificate of provenance, it's everything other than easy. And if Gerdes is so cowardly and dishonest as not to reveal what evidence would meet his challenge requirements, then his challenge is a hoax pure and simple, as anyone with two ounces of brain inside his skull should be able to see.

Gerdes

Is Muehlenkamp trying to imply those camps were once part of the money challenge but are not because apparently he has evidence on you?

Now here we go. The only real answer isn't a real answer. Its yes and no.

Were they once part of The Final Solution Forensic Challenge?

Yes.

Does he "have evidence on me?"

LOL! Not on your life Drew. If I recall correctly (nafcash went through many changes for its first few years, the challenge once even included Babi Yar. And it's going to be tough for me to rember how everything changed and why without doing a lot of digging through a lot of old forum posts. I'll do the best I can though.) roberta had over two years to submit evidence on the chelmno and belzec camps.

Actually I wrote my first blog about Gerdes on 15 May 2008 and started debating Gerdes on Topix in that month. By the end of that month, Gerdes decided to move the discussion (or most of it) to the "Vanguard New Network" forum, where he opened the thread Archaeological Investigations of Treblinka. My acceptance of the "challenge" was confirmed in my post # 596 on 12 July 2008. In my post # 777 on that thread, written on 22 July 2008, I listed all the documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence I had so far collected for the four Nazi extermination camps Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Chelmno, much of which I had already shown before on VNN and/or Topix. Very soon thereafter Gerdes excluded Belzec and Chelmno from the "challenge", as I pointed out in my post # 810 on 24 July 2008:

What even a retard can see is that Gerdes excluded Belzec and Chelmno from the challenge.

Current text, 24.07.2007 12:56 hours GMT:

Quote:THERE WAS NO TREBLINKA HOLOCAUST

Lest you think there must be some truth to the asinine pure extermination center canard

(That’s the psychology of the big-lie technique at work)

THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE TM

Also includes the alleged Sobibor holocaust.

Previous text, as per screenshot made on 18.07.2008 14:17 hours GMT:

Quote:Lest you think there must be some truth to the asinine pure extermination center canard

(That’s the psychology of the big-lie technique at work)

NO GRAVES = NO TREBLINKA HOLOCAUST

Page 17 of 24 The National Association of Forensic Criminologists, Archeologists, Skeptics and ...18-07-2008 http://www.nafcash.com/

THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE TM

Also includes the alleged holocausts at Belzec, Chelmno and Sobibor.

So Belzec and Chelmno are not included in the challenge anymore, Mr. Gerdes?

Why is that? Did you get cold feet? Did someone tell you that Prof. Kola’s Belzec report alone, or Mrs. Golden’s article in ARCHAEOLOGY magazine, may be considered by a court of law as sufficient proof to meet the challenge requirements?

So Belzec and Chelmno disappeared from the "challenge" two days at most after I had posted a comprehensive submittal of all evidence at my disposal concerning those camps. Who wouldn't take this coincidence as an indication that Gerdes had got cold feet regarding these two camps, like I did?

Anyway, it should be as clear as can be that Gerdes shamelessly (and very dumbly, considering the online records) lied about my having "had over two years to submit evidence on the chelmno and belzec camps" and failed to do so. A full ten days elapsed between my acceptance of the "challenge" and my VNN post # 777, through which Gerdes could see what would be coming at him re Belzec and/or Chelmno if I submitted the evidence listed in that post to SKEPTIC magazine. Two days thereafter at most, Belzec and Chelmno had disappeared from the "challenge".

Gerdes

He didn't make an issue until I made the changes to simplify the challenge to include only Sobibor and Treblinka.

Of course I didn’t make an issue about Belzec and Chelmno disappearing from the "challenge" until they had disappeared, duh! As to the "simplify the challenge" crap, who does Gerdes think he is fooling?

Gerdes

I'll provide evidence of that as we go on.

I’d love to see that evidence.

Gerdes

If so, I can only recall in the past the Treblinka camp being expressly stated as the only camp as part of the money challenge on the nafcash site.

And so? What matters is that all four extermination camps were included in the "challenge" when I joined it and only two were left less than two weeks later, thereby cutting my chances of meeting the "challenge" requirements and claiming the reward in half, so to say. If Gerdes were not the lying hoaxer that he is, he’d have frozen the "challenge" as it was on the day I stated my acceptance.

Gerdes

It's Treblinka and Sobibor. Express details can be found on the site.

Express details? I see lots of multi-colored hysterical hollering but not the one essential statement (which Gerdes has been conspicuously silent about so far, instead making a big fuss about a minor point of my blog that I mentioned by the way and dedicated a bracketed half sentence to):

"In order to claim the reward, the applicant must submit evidence that would be considered by a US court of justice duly applying the pertinent rules of evidence as proving beyond a reasonable doubt the location and contents of at least one mass grave at Treblinka or Sobibor containing human remains that correspond to at least one tenth of one per cent of the amount of bones, bone fragments, teeth, ashes or other human remains that can be reasonably expected to lie in the soil of the respective former camp if a minimum of between 700,000 and 800,000 Jews were killed at Treblinka and between 150,000 and 250,000 Jews were killed at Sobibor."

Gerdes

So if he is implying the money challenge used to include more than just Treblinka, would he be in fact lying?

Maybe not lying, but certainly not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Maybe not lying, but decieving with deliberate omissions.

And what exactly would I be deliberately omitting, Mr. Gerdes?

Gerdes

It used to also include more than that. There has been a number of different challenges on the nafcash site over the years.

The only one that matters in this discussion is the one that was in place on 12 July 2008, when I accepted the NAFCASH "challenge". And was cut in half less than two weeks later.

Gerdes

It would seem to me that if nafcash is offering a reward just expressly for Treblinka, but also talks about number reduction of the dead at Belzec and Chelmno, then I can assume nafcash is not adverse to a challege on these camps either.

As I've said, Sobibor is part of the challenge. There are also challenges concerning Belzec and Chelmno that have never been taken off the table. They were ignored by roberta, shermer, golden, o'neil, etc. They were most certainly removed from The Final Solution Forensic Challenge, but the never did "disapear."

What's the difference supposed to be?

Gerdes

Roberta could still accept those challenges today and I would honor them.

Err, I accepted the "challenge" with Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Chelmno in it more than a year ago, on 12 July 2008. And how did Gerdes (here again projecting his own effeminacy, as it seems) honor my acceptance? By removing Belzec and Chelmno from the accepted challenge less than two weeks later.

Gerdes

OK, I think this will be a good place to stop, supper's on.

OK chimp, let’s see if your disciple Drew J is beginning to realize that you are the inveterate liar you falsely accuse your opponent of being.

Drew J

Hear that? Gerdes is not opposed to evidence on Belzec or Chelmno.

That's good news. What's he waiting for to put Belzec and Chelmno back into the "challenge" wording on the NAFH site, then?

Drew J

And apparently Roberto had years to furnish evidence but never made a stink about it until Gerdes took it down. Likely because due to nothing happening, he assumed nothing would happen. So could this Gerdes email in fact be revealing a tactic of Muehlenkamp's? Accept a challenge. Then do nothing. Then when the challege is removed due to no one fulfilling it, cry foul and cry wolf and make yourself look good? Is it possible this is the case? Could be. Could be a nice way to save face.

As I had less than two weeks to "furnish evidence" after accepting the "challenge" before Gerdes removed Belzec and Chelmno, apparently after taking a look at what the evidence submitted via SKEPTIC magazine might be, I'll attribute these speculations, which seem to project classic "Revisionist" behaviors, to the not very nimble mind of a gullible jerk who swallowed another of Gerdes' many lies.

Drew J

The main reason why I have not yet claimed the reward is known to who has been following my discussions with Gerdes and was last expressed in my post # 2089 on the VNN thread Archeological Investigations of Treblinka: Gerdes persistently refused to state what evidence he would accept as proof meeting the requirements for claiming the reward, running away from every question in this sense or responding with meaningless hysterical "what part of the word 'proof' do you not understand" – screams.

Again, this is Muehlenkamp complaining about people refusing to accept low standards of evidence as proof such as that barely substantiated polish article about theft of teeth and gold at Treblinka.

So now the standards of evidence applied by US courts of justice are "low standards of evidence", Drew J?

I'm asking because those are the standards that I expect the evidence at my disposal to hold up to, and accordingly what I want Gerdes to confirm is that the standards of evidence applied by US courts of justice are also his standards:

"In order to claim the reward, the applicant must submit evidence that would be considered by a US court of justice duly applying the pertinent rules of evidence as proving beyond a reasonable doubt the location and contents of at least one mass grave at Treblinka or Sobibor containing human remains that correspond to at least one tenth of one per cent of the amount of bones, bone fragments, teeth, ashes or other human remains that can be reasonably expected to lie in the soil of the respective former camp if a minimum of between 700,000 and 800,000 Jews were killed at Treblinka and between 150,000 and 250,000 Jews were killed at Sobibor."

Drew J

Apparently, posts of mine on codoh that Muehlenkamp has obviously seen about the Jewish motive to lie and exaggerate, and also the evidence of Jews being caught in lies again and again means nothing. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5697&p=38223#p38223

Relax, Drew J, your imbecilic haggling about one or the other eyewitness’s "lies" does mean something to me. It means that little matters worry the minds of little cretins like you, and that you obviously have nothing but manure inside your skull. I'm sure that some of the Jewish eyewitnesses (there were also many eyewitnesses who had been visitors to the camps or lived by the camps or been part of the Ukrainian guard detachments or the SS supervisor staff, you know) exaggerated or otherwise embellished their accounts a bit, consciously or not. But that's something eyewitnesses do always and everywhere in regard to any given event, and the more catastrophic and traumatic the event is, the more such inaccuracies in eyewitness testimonies one will find. If that's an indication against the factuality of the event described, then there was never a US war in Vietnam. For there are literally thousands of phony Vietnam vets throughout the US, telling Rambo stories in a barroom on a Saturday night and stuff like that. Maybe you should get yourself a brain.

Drew J

Therefore, and in order to give Gerdes a last chance to make his "challenge" into something resembling a serious reward challenge rather than a transparent publicity act meant to fool hopeless suckers, I hereby challenge Gerdes to overcome his well-known cowardice and put the following statement on his NAFH website, in big bold letters (the color I leave to his dubious taste):

"In order to claim the reward, the applicant must submit evidence that would be considered by a US court of justice duly applying the pertinent rules of evidence as proving beyond a reasonable doubt the location and contents of at least one mass grave at Treblinka or Sobibor containing human remains that correspond to at least one tenth of one per cent of the amount of bones, bone fragments, teeth, ashes or other human remains that can be reasonably expected to lie in the soil of the respective former camp if a minimum of between 700,000 and 800,000 Jews were killed at Treblinka and between 150,000 and 250,000 Jews were killed at Sobibor."

The next step would be NAFH placing the reward money (in the improbable case that Gerdes & friends can collect such amount) on an Escrow account, but let’s do one thing at a time. As soon as Gerdes has placed the required statement in the required form on the NAFH site, I shall contact SKEPTIC magazine and start preparing my submission of evidenceregarding Treblinka and/or Sobibor for publication in that magazine.

Will Greg Gerdes be able to muster the minimum amount of courage and honesty required to put this statement on the NAFH site and keep it there, or will he again go into a hysterical "what part of the word 'proof' do you not understand" – act?

We shall see.

Think about the implications of Muehlenkamp's choice of words. Muehlenkamp has been sitting on evidence for years about human remains at Treblinka and Sobibor.

Actually I've not been sitting on such evidence but slapping it around the ears of Mattogno, Denierbud and other "Revisionist" jokers since I joined the Holocaust Controversies blog, not to mention my previous posting on various discussion forums. Except, that is, for the evidence I only started collecting after I met your mentor Gerdes, most of which is mentioned in my VNN posts nos. 172, 194, 777, 1710 and 1825 and my RODOH posts nos. 10971, 10995 (regarding Treblinka), 11216 and 11225 (regarding Sobibor). This evidence I used in my discussions with Gerdes and the "Muehlenkamp accepts nafcash's challenge" and Mass Graves at Sobibor blog series, while waiting for the day (which hasn’t yet arrived) on which Gerdes would muster the minimum amount of honesty and courage required to clearly state what his standards of evidence are and what evidence he would accept as proof of at least one mass grave at Treblinka or Sobibor containing human remains that correspond to at least one tenth of one per cent of the amount of bones, bone fragments, teeth, ashes or other human remains left in the soil from the mass murder at either camp.

Drew J

However he has decided not to help out the holocaust lobby or the Simon Wiesenthal center and thus get his name in the paper and spread his message far and wide to refute revisionists once and for all. He has instead spent years bragging that he has it, but he has in effect been sitting on it and saving it and delaying it, thus feeding fuel to the revisionist fire. In other words, hurting the cause of his own people. How's that for interesting? :lol:

What’s interesting is the amount of wishful thinking and other nonsense that comes out of Drew J’s keyboard, actually. First of all, I don’t give a damn about the "holocaust lobby" or the Simon Wiesenthal center or about getting my name "in the paper". Second, Drew J has serious delusions about the significance of his mentor Gerdes’ "challenge" if he thinks meeting or not meeting that "challenge" makes a big difference to the debate between "Revisionists" and their critics. Third, feeding fuel to the fire of Gerdian "Revisionist" imbecility helps that "fire" consume what little is left of “Revisionist” credibility, and is therefore desirable. And fourth, without a prior statement by Gerdes as to what his standards of evidence are his "challenge" is a rather transparent hoax, for he can always say afterwards that whatever evidence is submitted doesn’t satisfy his standards and nothing short of the required amount of human remains being unloaded in front of his trailer will entitle an applicant to the reward. Unlike gullible creatures like Drew J, I'm not one to fall for hoaxes.

Drew J

By the way, Muehlenkamp's deliberate stepping over evidence of Jewish lying and exaggeration, all done in the spirit of revenge and fame, (as admitted by people quoted in that massive Paul Grubach article in my Demjanjuk thread), makes him able to justify that weak polish article I already talked about. But he can't justify this on any grounds.

What is the fellow talking about here? What "evidence of Jewish lying and exaggeration, all done in the spirit of revenge and fame" am I supposed to have "stepped over", to start with? I hope for Drew J that he’s not referring to his Ehrenburg-Burg babblings commented above.

Drew J

This combined with how witnesses who claimed to have seen diesel engines weren't really credible witnesses at all (his and Sergy's implications, not mine), proves that eyewitness accounts have to be balanced with science.

Sergey’s implications are that the witnesses weren’t credible as concerns the type of engine, not that they were not credible in any respects. A non-technical witness catching a brief glimpse of the gassing procedure could well be mistaken about the type of engine without that affecting his credibility otherwise. As to eyewitness accounts having to be "balanced with science": of course an eyewitness account cannot be accepted as accurate insofar as it is physically, technically or logistically impossible. But "Revisionists" have in vain tried to demonstrate that gassing and body disposal as described by eyewitnesses (at least the more sober and knowledgeable ones) would have been physically, technically or logistically impossible.

Drew J

Since Muehlenkamp is so hard up on physical evidence and the scientific method, it makes one wonder why he demands that Gerdes, myself and the revisionists accept such low standards of proof like that polish article about Treblinka graverobbing of teeth and gold that somehow were forgotten to be photographed - JUST BECAUSE OTHER HOLOCAUST HISTORIANS WOULD BLINDLY ACCEPT IT.

I'm demanding that Gerdes apply the standards of proof that a US court of justice would apply, for court standards are the most stringent reasonable standards around. I'm confident that the photos and other evidence mentioned in the Polish article would, if presented in due form (documents in original or as copies confirmed to coincide with the originals, photographs with confirmation of provenance by a witness and/or expert) be considered by a US court of justice as evidence of the extensive robbery-digging that took place on the Treblinka site after it was overrun by the Red Army in 1944. If what a court of justice would accept as evidence is not good enough for Gerdes, then he should be fucking specific about what would be good enough to claim his reward.

Drew J

The Diesel issue being irrelevant? Even so, that's a small battle, and you still haven't won the war as Berg, Occam's Razor and me Drew J show.

Wishful thinking, my friend. As long as Berg & friends haven't managed to demonstrate that

a) gassing with gasoline exhaust under the conditions of the ARC gas chambers must have killed by carbon monoxide poisoning only, and not also alternatively or concomitantly by suffocation due to lack of oxygen;

b) carbon monoxide poisoning would have necessarily given all victims a "bright cherry red" appearance despite their dying in a state of exhaustion and high anxiety, and despite the fact that most of them were malnourished inhabitants of Polish ghettos suffering from anemia and/or other malnutrition-related conditions that impaired they capacity to oxygenate;

c) the "bright cherry red" appearance would have been present immediately after death and thus at the time when the few eyewitnesses who described the victims' aspect got to see the corpses, and not only some time later when those witnesses no longer had the corpses in sight; and

d) the "bright cherry red" coloring would necessarily become apparent to the average human eye of casual observers who did not examine the bodies like a coroner or forensic investigator would, and who had other visual impressions and the emotional impact of the scene to distract them,

their claim that the eyewitnesses in question must have recalled "bright cherry red" corpses is just that, another unproven and probably baseless "Revisionist" claim. I still have to see them discredit the knowledgeable eyewitnesses who mentioned gasoline engines.

Drew J

Secondly, as Paul Grubach's article quoted in the Demjanjuk thread shows it was pointless of the Nazis to disagree with the prevailing propaganda.

Are you trying to tell us the SS defendants at trials regarding Chelmno and Sobibor mentioned gasoline engines because the "prevailing propaganda" at the time was diesel engines, or what is the above baloney supposed to mean? As to just how constrained Nazi defendants at West German trials were to accept any "prevailing propaganda", see my blog Jürgen Graf on Criminal Justice and Nazi Crimes.

Drew J

As for nafcash formerly mentioning Krege, that is true.

And quite significant, as a matter of fact.

Why do you think Gerdes took it out, except because he realized that Krege shot "Revisionism" in the foot, or at the very least that Krege has become a joke through his failure to publish a report about his loudly touted findings at Treblinka?

Drew J

That video, you can still right click and save as to your hard drive. And so yeah, Muehlenkamp is correct that Krege used to be mentioned on nafcash. Even mail-archive.com bears this out.http://www.mail-archive.com/islamkriste ... 12281.html

Then it's about time you ask Gerdes, who you obviously exchange e-mails with, why the heck he removed mentions of Krege from his website. What are you waiting for?

Drew J

Muehlenkamp claims with hypertext that at this link Krege found evidence of soil disturbance which would allegedly prove a massive holocaust at Treblinka.http://www.atheistparents.org/forum/vie ... c&start=25

Actually it is the opinion of an expert in GPR technology, Lawrence B. Conyers, that Krege’s ground scanning – apart from having been very incompetently done or processed – probably reveals the very presence of mass graves that Krege claimed to have ruled out. Conyers wrote the following:

I looked at the web site, and the image you sent. It is only one small part of his 'grid'. The picture shows him using a 200 MHz antenna and collecting about 1 meter spaced transects in a huge grid. That image is not processed, and only shows about a 5 meter long section in one line. And even in that profile it looks like a bunch of "things" in the ground on the right hand side that could easily be mass graves. It is apparent that this guy either does not know anything of GPR, or at the very least does not know how to process it. To really do a good job, the data need to be put into a 3-D cube of reflections and processed in a batch, including ALL the profiles collected. If you really wanted to get to the bottom of this you either need to get his data and let someone else process it, or re-collect it all and re-process your own data. This is NOT a scientific or representive study of the ground by any stretch.

Significant purturbation of the "A" or topsoil horizon is present and the inconsistent returns from the "B" or subsoil horizon certainly merits investigation. As an example of undisturbed soil, this fails any test.

"Obdicut":

Mr. Mills,

Since the images do show disturbance of the topsoil consistent with graves (in the most generous sense), I hope he didn't follow your advice.

Drew J

It'll make for some intersting reading. Meanwhile, I will leave Muehlenkamp to continue to bitch about revisionists not accepting low standards of proof like that Polish grave robbing article just because his fellow extermination theorists in the field of history like MIchael Shermer would accept it.

Bitching I leave to the likes of Gerdes and Drew J. As the fellow is constantly babbling about the "low" standards of proof applied by historians in Holocaust matters, perhaps he can tell us

a) what his own "high" standards of evidence are all about, namely what they would demand as proof of mass murder at places like Treblinka; b) what (other than convenience to his articles of faith) his "high" standards of evidence are based on, namely if there are manuals on historical research or rules of evidence applied in criminal justice that establish such "high" standards; c) what historical events that he accepts as factual have been proven according to such "high" standards of evidence.

So much for the moron Drew J and what he transmitted of Gerdes’ cowardly beating-about-the-bush. Now Ill have a look at how Gerdes further disgraced himself in his post of Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:28 pm on page 5 of the Cesspit thread Things have changed for me... [OR MAYBE NOT], written under the handle "Pepper".

Gerdes

Looks like Gerdes is giving Muehlenkamp nightmares.

Actually it look like things are the other way around, judging by how "Pepper" aka Gerdes and his disciple Drew J obsessively ramble against my humble person.

Gerdes

And did you notice that over at rodoh they have Gerdes on the brain? Every other poster is a Gerdes sock-puppet. Gerdes is behind every tree. The only person in the world who asks to see evidence of the holocaust is Gerdes. If you ask to see the location of a mass grave, you're banned as a Gerdes sock-puppet. I'll bet Mr. Gerdes is laughing his ass off at how obsessed the rodohoaxers are over him.

Gerdes is obviously projecting the current Muehlenkamp-hysteria on the CODOH Cesspit when postulating that a similar hysteria has hit the RODOH forum. Actually only one sock-puppet ("mr hilter") was briefly assumed there to be Gerdes, as far as I remember.

Gerdes

Muehlenkamp

it is nowhere stated what evidence the NAFH would accept as fulfilling the requirements of its "challenge"

Is this the truth or a lie? I'll check the nafcash site. OK, here is what I found:

[…]

(3,500 pounds of cremated bone fragments or 27,000 teeth)

[…]

(1,000 pounds of cremated bone fragments or 8,000 teeth)

of this fraud.

It's plain as day what nafh is asking for.

Looks like Muehlenkamp has been caught in yet another lie.

Actually Muehlenkamp was never caught in a single lie but stopped counting the lies he caught Gerdes in at an early stage on the Topix forum. And the above is another of Gerdes’ lies, for he’s obviously playing dumb and deliberately misunderstanding my statement, which is not about what must be proven (that is stated) but about what will be accepted as proof of what must be proven to claim the reward. In other words:

What will be accepted as proof that at least 3,500 pounds of cremated bone or 27,000 teeth lie in one identified mass grave in the area of Treblinka extermination camp?

What will be accepted as proof that at least 1,000 pounds of cremated bone or 8,000 teeth lie in one identified mass grave in the area of Sobibor extermination camp?

If Gerdes said that what what will be accepted as proof is whatever would convince a US court of justice beyond a reasonable doubt, he would be setting high but reasonable standards, and his challenge would soon be met.

If Gerdes said that nothing short of the required amount of cremated bone or teeth unloaded at his doorstep with a certificate or provenance will be accepted as proof, he would be setting unreasonably high standards far beyond anything that was ever demanded in any pertinent discipline, but at least his challenge would be transparent enough to deserve the name.

But as Gerdes persistently refuses to state what he would accept as proof of at least 3,500 pounds of cremated bone or 27,000 teeth at Treblinka, or of at least 1,000 pounds of cremated bone or 8,000 teeth at Sobibor, his "challenge" is not transparent and therefore must be called a hoax and not a challenge. For whatever is presented as evidence, Gerdes will always have the possibility of saying "this is not what was demanded".

Hence my challenge that he make clear beforehand what must be submitted as proof of what must be proven to claim the reward.

Gerdes

So what is Muehlenkamp waiting for?

I'm waiting for the cowardly chimp to put this statement on his NAFH website in big bold letters, as the cowardly chimp well knows:

"In order to claim the reward, the applicant must submit evidence that would be considered by a US court of justice duly applying the pertinent rules of evidence as proving beyond a reasonable doubt the location and contents of at least one mass grave at Treblinka or Sobibor containing human remains that correspond to at least one tenth of one per cent of the amount of bones, bone fragments, teeth, ashes or other human remains that can be reasonably expected to lie in the soil of the respective former camp if a minimum of between 700,000 and 800,000 Jews were killed at Treblinka and between 150,000 and 250,000 Jews were killed at Sobibor."

Gerdes

BTW, did you notice that he says he can only prove 4 graves at Sobibor?

Actually I said that I can prove all graves in the Sobibor area and physically locate at least four of them. Big difference. And I thought one only has to locate one mass grave and prove that it contains at least "one tenth of one per cent …".

Last but not least, there’s Gerdes post of Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:11 pm, this time as himself, in which the chimp writes the following:

Muehlenkamp

"In January 2009, Greg Gerdes was banned from CODOH"

How many lies can one "man" tell in a lifetime?

Surely Muehlenkamp has set, or is nearing the record.

The record will be known when compulsive liar Gerdes beats the boots, assuming someone has kept count of the lies that come as naturally as breathing to the creature (at least two are exposed in this blog). And Gerdes’ obsession with Muehlenkamp obviously kept him from noticing that the blog he is referring to was not written by me but by my fellow blogger Jonathan Harrison (who would not have been lying in the unlikely case that he was mistaken about Gerdes having been banned from the Cesspit, of course).